Thread: Cash for Clunkers

Originally Posted by gunnut

Really? How popular is it? I certainly don't believe it. Do you?

A damned sight more popular than it should be in an educated nation. You show the same intellectual traits.

According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[98] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess I can't ask you to explain it.

I don't have children, so I'm not qualified.

I will make a feeble attempt, however, since you have resorted to your usual tactic of simply avoiding the relvant facts. The issue here is not global warming, so lining up reguritated arguments about that is irrelevant. The issue here is simply 'is C02 a pollutant?'. The article deals with this in the first two paragraphs - the rest of the article is unnecessary to prove the point. Since experience has shown that you usually lose concentration after the first line or so, I will quote a relevant passage from about the 3rd paragraph. If you can manage it, read that far.

Some scientists have suggested that when the earth was new (about 4.5 billion years ago), CO2 may have made up as much as 80% of the earth's atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the concentration of CO2 was likely 20 or 30%. Human life and even most life could not have survived in such an atmosphere. With the evolution of photosynthesizing plants, the concentration of CO2 dropped and the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere increased.

Put simply, above a certain level C02 becomes a pollutant (and that level is MUCH lower than 20% - that is just where animal life actually can't breathe). The same is true of a lot of other things. Want an example - drink some mercury (please). Mercury occours naturally & you regularly consume it in food, especially if you eat fish. Using your logic (being charitable here) it cannot be a pollutant.

I realize that you aren't going to admit you are wrong. Since facts weren't required to produce your opinions they won't change them. Every time you post, however, you just make yourself look more foolish.

Originally Posted by zraver

Great idea, and it would do even more to help, but it doesn;t take away from the fact that the program works. I also see a couple of problems.

1. The government is buying the used cars from people. If they turned around and gave those cars away without first subjecting each and every one to an overhaul any hidden safety defects would open the government up to lawsuits. I can see the television commercials now. "Were you or some you know injured of killed by a clunker giveaway? Call 1-800 Sue 4 You now."

2. If the government did the overhauls, the cost of the program would go way up.

You're making an assumption, and an incorrect one. The title isn't signed over to the government. It's signed over to the dealership. The government's requirement is that the dealer then replace the motor oil with sodium silicate and run the vehicle until the engine is destroyed, then scrap it to be eligible for reimbursement of the discount they gave the customer.

At no point does the government assume ownership of any vehicles redeemed under the CARS program. For all practical purposes, it's a government-funded trade-in program in which trade-in price is fixed at $3500 or $4500, and the government then reimburses the dealers the amount. If the dealer really wanted, they could pass along, say, a $3500 discount, and turn around and sell the clunker for $5000 if they were able to. They just wouldn't be eligible for reimbursement.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

• Dealers must disclose to the consumer the dealer's best estimate of the scrap value of an eligible trade-in vehicle.
• Dealers must take possession of the trade-in vehicle and certify that they have done so prior to submitting a reimbursement request. Consumers may not turn in the trade-in vehicle later.
• Dealers must transfer the trade-in vehicle to a salvage auction or disposal facility participating in the CARS Program.
• Dealers must disable the engine of the trade-in vehicle prior to transfer to a salvage auction or disposal facility.

CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Dealer Home - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”

Originally Posted by Bigfella

I will make a feeble attempt, however, since you have resorted to your usual tactic of simply avoiding the relvant facts. The issue here is not global warming, so lining up reguritated arguments about that is irrelevant. The issue here is simply 'is C02 a pollutant?'. The article deals with this in the first two paragraphs - the rest of the article is unnecessary to prove the point. Since experience has shown that you usually lose concentration after the first line or so, I will quote a relevant passage from about the 3rd paragraph. If you can manage it, read that far.

Put simply, above a certain level C02 becomes a pollutant (and that level is MUCH lower than 20% - that is just where animal life actually can't breathe). The same is true of a lot of other things. Want an example - drink some mercury (please). Mercury occours naturally & you regularly consume it in food, especially if you eat fish. Using your logic (being charitable here) it cannot be a pollutant.

I realize that you aren't going to admit you are wrong. Since facts weren't required to produce your opinions they won't change them. Every time you post, however, you just make yourself look more foolish.

I agree, CO2 in sufficient levels is a pollutant. Anything in large enough concentration is a pollutant. What I'm saying is we aren't at that level yet. In fact, using your numbers (20%), we are far, far, far from it. What are we at right now? 350/1,000,000? That's 0.00035%. Let's say the study is correct that the CO2 level has increased by 60% over the last 150 years. And let's be wild in attributing this entire increase to the industrial age. At that rate, it will take us over 6000 years to increase CO2 content of the atmosphere to 1%.

I admit, in the strictest sense, CO2 is a pollutant.

For practical purposes, CO2 is not a pollutant.

'Cash-for-clunkers' program worries charities - USATODAY.com

Cash-for-clunkers' program worries charities
Updated 8/10/2009 1:17 AM
By Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY

Charities across the country are concerned that the popular "cash-for-clunkers" program will entice people to junk old cars for credit toward new ones rather than donate them.

"We know there's going to be a significant impact," says Chad Iseman, director of the Kidney Cars program for the National Kidney Foundation. Iseman says the foundation gets about 19% of its annual revenue from selling donated cars. The charity said it estimates a 10% to 15% decline because of the federal rebates.

"Really, the only question is to what degree cash-for-clunkers is going to affect our bottom line and our ability to serve our constituents," says Iseman, who, along with Goodwill CEO Jim Gibbons, met with members of Congress in April to express concern.

Clunkers program could drive used car prices up - USATODAY.com

Clunkers program could drive used car prices up
Updated 8/10/2009 9:12 PM
By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY

Hundreds of thousands of "clunkers" headed for scrappers may cause already rising prices for used cars to head even higher, dealers and market analysts warn.

The popular cash-for-clunkers program, extended by Congress last week with $2 billion more in federal incentives, requires that all the old fuel guzzlers traded in are scrapped — not resold. That means up to 750,000 vehicles will never find their way into the hands of another owner. Many are at the end of their useful lives, but others, with years of life left in them, normally would be resold.

"Those are the cars that lower-income families need," says Geoff Smartt, owner of Smartt Cars in Caldwell, Idaho.

Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used car lots.

Now, the clunker program could cause prices to rise 5% to 10% more, especially for vehicles worth $4,500 or less, says Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "It's going to drive prices up of some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road."

Originally Posted by zraver

However, the evidence does not support your position.

18% of drivers do not buckle up, they make up 46% of daylight fatalities and 64% of night time deaths.

while the number of annual deaths on the nations highway seems to be fairly constant, the deaths per 100 million miles traveled continues to drop as more and more Americans drive farther and farther. while other things and technologies have a role in the reduced death rate. Things like ABS, disc brakes, wider medians etc. The fact remains that the minority of drivers who refuse to buckle up make up an inordinate amount of the flesh scraped off the highways and peeled off of trees and telephone poles. So while gentler curves, speed limits, seat belts, air bags et al might play a role in encouraging unsafe behavior, there is zero evidence that such human folly has been able to keep up with the pace of safety technology.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/buckleup/ciot-p...ickFacts08.pdf

The problem with the analysis that you are using is that it's aggregated. If you were to disaggregate the results, you'd find that mandatory safety equipment doesn't have the immediate positive impact. I'd agree that over generations it will have an impact, but if you take a driver that is a risky driver to begin with, give them a piece of safety equipment that reduces the cost of their risky driving, then they will drive in an even more risky fashion.

A simple thought experiment is to give one person airbags, safety belts, etc., and the other person a car with a spike in the steering wheel. The safer driver will be the one with the spike in the wheel. However, when you add in traffic jams, lower speed limits, more stop lights, etc., innovations or changes that preclude higher speed accidents, these contributions to the overall accident death rate can cloud out the contribution of mandatory safety equipment. Multiple regression analysis that's used in econometrics allows you to parse out the partial effect of different determinants, and the consistent (not unanimous) result is that mandatory safety equipment either has no impact or increases accidents/fatalities.

Originally Posted by Shek

'Cash-for-clunkers' program worries charities - USATODAY.com

Originally Posted by Shek

Clunkers program could drive used car prices up - USATODAY.com

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Originally Posted by Shek

and the consistent (not unanimous) result is that mandatory safety equipment either has no impact or increases accidents/fatalities.

If safety equipment had no impact, death rates would be fairly constant across the population. If 1/5 of drivers refused to wear belts and 1/5th of those killed on the highways were not wearing safety belts you'd have an argument. But when 1/5th of the population accounts for half of highway deaths there is a problem with drivers. By your own thought experiment the use of safety equipment would encourage risky behavior (driving too fast for conditions), yet the person not wearing a belt is obviously not encouraged to go faster becuase of the safety provided by the belt becuase they are not using it.

IIRC, you claimed safety belts caused an increase in fatalities. The evidence does not support that. Per million miles traveled as safety equipment has improved- death rates have gone down. Under your thought experiment we should have at least seen accident spikes when seat belts, air bags, traction control etc hit their strides and became a majority feature on the highway but we don't. What we do see is a shrinking portion of the population who does not use the safety equipment (and thus should be a safer driver) ending up in the majority of crashes that result in loss of life.